Slashdot Mirror
Fighting RIAA Without an Attorney
2think writes "Yahoo News is reporting that Patricia Santangelo of New York will be taking on the RIAA in court without an attorney. It seems that Ms. Santangelo has committed over $24,000 due to her case and simply cannot afford to continue with the services of an attorney." From the article: "Her former lawyer, Ray Beckerman, says Santangelo doesn't really need him. 'I'm sure she's going to win,' he said. 'I don't see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything. They don't know how the files appeared on her computer or who put them there.'"
I'm guessing the RIAA will drop the case anyway and try to find someone with a bit more cash on hand next time. She's flat broke, what use is she to them now? Wait, this is supposed to be about justice? My bad...
Vandemar.org
"Gee, judge, I have no idea how the cocaine got in my suitcase or who put it there. Can I leave now?"
That's her defense. Good luck, Patricia. Yer gonna needit.
While the RIAA may have the law on its side to pursue these cases, is it truly just to file blind lawsuits in this manner. If they believe that everyone who buys a PC must know how to adequately secure it from external and internal users, doesn't it then stand to reason that it should be suing the OS and hardware companies who sell their products in a completely unsecured state? Or shouldn't the RIAA work with these companies to make their products secure out of the box ?
Why is it the responsibility of this woman to become a security expert in order to benefit the RIAA ?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
At this point, even if he told her that she could never make it without him, he'd sound like a greedy bastard. This way, he shows that he's nice and really cares about his clients, even after they've stopped paying him.
If she wins, he gets to imply (or let people imply) that it was because of suggestions that he gave her. If she loses, well... he gets to sit there quietly and let people shake their heads and say "She never should've fired that lawyer".
Realistically, though, he's probably just a nice person. The lawyers that I know are no different from anyone else, and they really are more interested in doing the right thing than making a few extra bucks.
The music industry is shooting themselves in the foot, once again, with these lawsuits. Conceivably, many of the people being targeted in these lawsuits are using versions of Kazaa/Limewire/iMesh for which they have paid. The more computer-illiterate among them don't know the difference between paying for an ad-free program and paying for music.
As an on-site computer technician, I've talked with many parents who didn't understand they were still taking a risk by letting their children download from Limewire Pro. They think since they paid for the program, they have paid for the music. They don't under the difference between peer-to-peer programs and legitimate music download services.
I often think that the RIAA is going to turn many novice computer users off from online purchasing altogether because they are going after the unsophisticated user who doesn't understand copyright and what constitutes a legitimate channel and what does not. If they really want to stop online piracy, they need to go after the makers of the software, not the poor people they duped into believing that they had "purchased" music.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
And we all have an interest in her winning.
Where can I make a donation to her legal defense fund?
And why has the EFF not taken up the case?
Reality has a liberal bias
Except that, on the net, this really does happen. People take over other's computers all the time, to host porn sites, warez sites, to use them as hops/storage on the way to another computer, and for all sorts of other crap. There's really no reason to assume that someone is guilty for having files on their computer with the net as it is today, and security as it is today.
Unlike drugs, or kiddy porn where the mere possession is a crime, copyright infringement is only a tort if it can be proven that you transferred the files to someone else. In any event, it's very possible that her box could have been a zombie, rooted by some bored teenager looking to file share without risk.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This is something most people don't get, and it's a misconception the RIAA/MPAA push as much as possible when they go on about "illegal downloads". They've gone way past the limits on *distribution* that copyright imposes, and they'd like to attack your right to watch and listen to the speech of others at its very core. Their business model can't easily coexist with basic human freedom in the digital age, just as many moguls and kings in the agricultural age couldn't get by without slavery; after all, didn't their incomes depend on it?
To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Every person who advocates for the RIAA and punishing downloaders falls for one or more of these errors. Reject these, and you see the RIAA's legal tactics for what they are: criminal extortion and racketeering. Now that the RIAA gets to teach these awful anti-values to elementary students, however, the future of freedom is in serious jeopardy.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
IANAL, and the exact text of copyright law varies between countries, so it does depend upon your country, but the general argument goes something like this.
Copyright is the right to make copies. Only the copyright holder can make and distribute copies. Fair use allows a defence against infringement in certain circumstances, but we'll assume for the sake of argument using a P2P app to grab a complete copy of a copyrighted work isn't one of them.
Now, the person uploading a non-licenced copyrighted work is definitely breaking the law, as they are distributing. The question is, is the person downloading also making a copy? After all, the copy is actually assembled on the downloaders machine. In jurisdictions where you're allowed to make personal copies, it's possible you could argue you're just getting a rip of something you already own, or that you assumed the uploader had permission to distribute.
Instead, they could try to get you with contributory infringement, i.e. you had knowledge of the infringement (making a copy) and materially contributed (i.e. your computer downloading the copy at your request)
Uploaders are definitely at risk, legally, but downloaders are in a much greyer area, depending on wording and interpretation of the law. If you get caught in the act of downloading, or have a large collection of material which is obviously infringing copies, you may well face a lawsuit.
Imagine the police turned up to arrest a street vendor selling what turns out to be dodgy music CDs while you're buying one. It'd be hard to get you for anything. Now imagine they catch you giving the guy a blank CD so he can copy something for you on the spot - it'd be much easier to get you for contributory infringement, especially if you already have a CD wallet full of things you don't have orginial copies of. Downloading is somewhat similar. As far as I've been able to check, all the P2P users lawsuits have been about uploading, though the media tend to use uploaded and downloaded interchangably, incorrectly.
Either way, you're a lot safer being a leech, though you're definitely still taking somewhat of a risk.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
They're her kids too, and she's responsible for what they do as well. Have you people ever heard of "rationalization"? I'm as crooked as many of you, but at least I admit it....
Agreed that she should have a lawyer. Gotta call bullshit on "They have her IP Address. She did it." We know the former, but only speculate about the latter. Sounds like, "The police wouldn't have arrested 'em if they hadn't done it."
Realistically, though, he's probably just a nice person
Having taken $24000 off her and leaving her broke.
singing happy birthday in a public place (or at a girl scouts campfire!) is considered a public performance, and that right is also reserved solely to copyright holders and those they licence to do so. Same principle as a bar with a jukebox, there's mechanisms in place to buy the licence to play the songs, and that money goes back to the various people with a stake (though not in a particularly fair manner)
There's a bunch of rights covered under copyright law, including rights to the words, the rights to a recorded performance, being allowed to 'cover' or make new performances, moral rights (being known as the author) etc etc.
Equating downloading a file to "it's creating a copy and that's illegal" is bad voodoo, I could argue that I am simply on the receiving end of those bytes and recording them for later use, is that not the same as time-shifting a radio or television program?
Time shifting of broadcasted programs/music has been judged to be a fair use, i.e. recording a broadcasted program is illegal under the law, but taping it for watching it later then deleting it is considered a defence. It remains to be seen as to whether downloading a tv program off the net instead of taping it will also be considered fair use, or downloading a music track instead of taping it off the radio is considered fair use. Of course, radio stations rarely play entire albums, so getting the whole CD is more likely to remain outside fair use, and the quality of the recording also matters. Whether you could have received the program in the first place is also relevent.
This is the interesting thing. Nothing with regards users downloading files has reached court, despite the RIAA claiming success against 'illegal downloaders' - what they've done so far is bully uploaders into paying an arbitrary fine because they fear the huge fines the RIAA threaten a court would impose. Uploading is much more clearly against copyright law, though you still have to prove that the person in question actually did the uploading.
To be blunt, I don't think we'll really know whether downloading alone is contributory copyright infringement, copyright infringement, or covered by fair use until a case comes to court and is judged.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Having taken $24000 off her and leaving her broke.
No, having provided a service for a fee that was agreed upon in advance. He didn't "take" anthing.
I bet he still gets a percentage if she wins.
Highly unlikely. An attorney working on an hourly AND a contingency (percentage) fee is pretty rare. In addition, what would he get a percentage of? Even if she wins, she gets nothing. She's the defendant, not the plaintiff.
Having taken $24000 off her and leaving her broke.
For which I'm sure she's got services rendered. It's sort of like getting a lease on a car to drive around the world, and half-way there you're broke. Was the car rental really the one to screw you over?
Now, he probably should have given her some better legal advice on how long this'd take and how much it'd cost, but I don't know how much cheaper it'd get. As long as he is her attorney I assume he has responsibilities for her defense which means his paralegals have to do the rest, even the parts she might do on her own.
What's the alternative? I'm sure you've heard the saying "Anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client". It'd be a matter of sooner versus later. Maybe he hoped a lawyer and real legal defense could make them drop the case before she ran out of money. In any case, I don't think it would have been good legal advice to say "don't hire me" either.
What else could he do? Take it pro bono? Possibly, but I doubt a guy representing single mothers of five rake in millions. He probably has a student loan to pay, mortgage to pay, kids to feed and so on. In short, she's getting the shaft but I don't quite see how he's at fault for that.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Under a fair and just system of law, only the most complex cases would require hiring a third party for legal representation. The simple reason why lawyers are "standard" today in the court of law is that the law is overly complex (and therefore ambiguous, exploitable, and corrupt). There are now so many laws, and so many ways to "interpret" them, that it is literally impossible for one person to comprehend them all. We are all criminals in one way or another, and if government wants to lock up a peaceful individual, they can easily find a way.
Put another way, if the average individual can't represent himself before the law, then there is something very wrong with the law.
Where are the FACTS? "Santangelo says she has never downloaded a single song on her computer..." Was she accused of DOWNLOADING SONGS, or was she accused of sharing i.e. DISSIMINATING copyrighted material? Why is reporting on these cases so SLOPPY and imprecise? If a reporter was this sloppy in Iraq (were the troops under fire, or were they firing?) someone would get fired.
It seems pretty clear that her attorney had hoped to get this case dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion (lack of sufficient evidence). He was hoping they would just leave the woman alone at that point. If you go find the available court transcripts and read them, you can tell the judge is not fond of the RIAA attorneys or their suit. But she still has to follow the law, and her interpretation of the law is that this thing needs to go forward. Now the RIAA guys have put themselves in a real bind. These downloading suits are really a revenue-generating protection racket -- Give us money or we'll sue you. Most people just gave them the money. Now that somebody is fighting back, they can't just drop the suit, or it will look like they brought the suit in bad faith (which they did). So a very unsympathetic Goliath has to fight a very sympathetic David in front of a jury and live with the precedent they set. They will also be subject to discovery, which could be the source of all manner of fun. It may even help this lady to go pro se now. To the jury, it will look like the RIAA is persecuting this poor single mother who can't even afford an attorney (which they are).
I really take issue with the people implying (or outright stating) that this attorney was trying to scam this poor lady. As you pointed out, he likely has student loans to pay, and that debt is likely to be larger than many mortgages. Lawyers are expected to do some pro bono work, but they also have to make a living like everyone else. If everybody here is so altruistic, feel free to send this woman some of your own money so she can pay her attorney again.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
If this were a criminal case, you'd be right, it's foolish to risk defending yourself. As is, there's really not a lot for the lady to lose at this point. She's already broke, so it doesn't matter if she loses horriblly and is responsible for $8 billion in damages, there's no way she'll be able to pay it. If she wins, she'll be able to write a book or movie and at least get back some of the money she's spent on this case already.
That's the pickle the RIAA has gotten themselves into -- you should never start a fight with someone who has nothing to lose.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
With $24,000 you can buy a nice car or make a basic annual salary in US. The question is why people are not able to get sufficient counseling for that ammount?
I'm not a communist but I would like to believe that people should be able to defend their rights for much less than their all their fortune. Actually what is the use (fairness) of a legal system that allow only rich people win?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Digital audio sucks. It doesn't sound real, and the quality is worse than vinyl.
This argument is one of many in the supposedly "pro" audio segment that sounds pretty plausible. Others include such ideas that all file compression degrades audio, expensive audiophile cabling sounds better than normal electrical wire, and hardware sounds better than software. Unsurprisingly, many of these arguments are put forth by vendors selling this equipment. And unfortunately for those who have invested a lot of money in high-end audio equipment, these arguments (and others like them), have been debunked numerous times.
When people say vinyl and tube amps have better sound quality, it's usually because (a) they believe these "experts", (b) nostalgia, or (c) they think that it sounds more "real" because there's physical mechanics working (the needle, etc).
All three of these are pretty bad reasons for claiming a technical superiority, especially if you have no background in fields that deal scientifically with audio. Have you conducted double-blind listening tests between CD/vinyl and tube/transistor setups? This is basically the only way to get a metric on "quality", although there are some pitfalls. Some people can pick out noise present in vinyl, or can hear specific artifacts introduced when using lossy compression (MP3, Vorbis, etc), so their bias is evident in the testing. But for personal preference, it works very well.
About CD recordings: in the 80s, the CD was a completely new recording medium. Many people who mixed records had worked with vinyl for a long time, and they knew how to make it sound really good. Moving to CD, it was quite a bit different. Many of the tricks and techniques they used when working with vinyl no longer had the same effect. This is unfortunate, since CD re-releases in the early CD days sounded like ass compared to the buttery-goodness of an expertly engineered LP (this is what I've heard. I haven't experienced it first-hand). This is why you see debates and recommendations on audio sites between people who compare different CD mixes, comparing it to the LP/other recordings. (or perhaps live, who knows).
BUT! If you like the way tube amps and records sound, go with it. I like the cracks and hiss of recordings sometimes, and I'm not being sarcastic. One of the reasons I think people like LPs is that you can tell they are recordings, not like CDs that are mixed to sound slick and "perfect". But please try to lay off on the technical angle, unless you've done some testing (and published it somewhere so everyone can see).
PS: I mostly agree with you about digital music sales. The RIAA-blessed and DRM-wrapped files are really worthless. But there are sites out there that sell lossless (FLAC, etc) files that aren't encumbered. You just won't be able to get the new Britney Spears single.
As a college professor who makes about 3x $24K a year before taxes and overhead, I have a hard time feeling he's anything but a leech who just sucked a host dry and then wandered away from the husk.
Yes, but, with respect, most of your "overhead" is paid for by the institution that employs you. The defendant's attorney has to pay for the lease on his office, power and heating bills, the wages of his support staff, etc. A law practice is a business and has to pay its bills just like any other business.
You also have to bear in mind that the $24K figure mentioned probably also contains disbursements and outlays (court filing fees, which are often quite horrendous; the charges the attorney had to pay for any investigations or searches that were done; and printing, photocopying and postage, which don't sound like much, but which add up given the amount of paper that litigation always generates) as well as the fees that the attorney takes home as his own.
As I said above, I assume that the majority of these things are just taken care of with respect to a college professor's position. I agree that $24K seems excessive given the current stage of proceedings, but only the defendant and her attorney know the full details of the way in which the matter has been conducted, and I think the reasons you've given in support of the contention that the attorney is a leech are bogus.
Because law school is expensive and a lot of work, and legal counsel ina protracted case requires lots of booked hours. Most people don't want to get a law degree and end up working at $10/hr.
Only in criminal cases, which I don't believe this one is.
OK, let's assume they work at $100/hr, which is way the heck more than the average citizen earns. That still means he worked 240 hours on a case that he "can't imagine they'll win." Something's amiss there.
-Kurt
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Public defenders are for criminal cases. This is a civil case. With very limited exceptions, such as "civil" cases in which a government adjacency is seeking to take away custody of children, defendants in civil cases are not provided with legal counsel by the government.